The Rabid Conservative

Call me crazy, but I think one of these basketballs would be a really good thing:

Turns out, over the weekend during the Easter Egg Roll activities at the White House, there was a basketball clinic featuring pro b-ball players. And you know, it can only be an Obama event with something that draws attention to El Presidente’s “awesomeness”.

Gak.

In any case, though, here’s how I think an Obama basketball might be actually a good thing to have:

5. That way, we all can pretend that it’s his head that’s being bounced around – a prospect that would be great stress relief, particularly over the high gas prices, exploding national debt to which Obama promised he wouldn’t add a single dime, and the insanity of bilking millionaires for 30% of their earnings, just because Warren Buffet says so.

4. It would look like just like Obama’s approval rating.

3. It would remind us of how Obama tries to govern, driving down the center, pissing everyone off.  (hat tip: Letterman)

2. It reminds us of the classic excuse for why the Utah Jazz, Orlando Magic, or the Phoenix Suns never won an NBA title, a team in “transition”.  I say transitioning from bad to worse.

1. It would make a video like this, which one would think couldn’t get any funnier, hysterical:

Stay rabid, my friends.

…but I seriously doubt that he will admit still that we need voter ID laws.

Sometimes, people just don’t get it.  Or maybe they do and they just don’t want to admit it because if they do, it shows that they are very wrong about things.

I personally believe we need voter ID laws.  Now before all you lib-crats out there begin having kittens about disenfranchisement and people being denied their vote, perhaps they should see this latest stunt by Project Veritas’ own James O’Keefe.

By the way, if you don’t remember, O’Keefe was the guy who embarrassed organizations like Planned Parenthood, ACORN, Medicaid, and NPR by showing different aspects of fraud and putting them out there on video.

So, O’Keefe rolls into Eric Holders voting district and asks for Mr. Holder’s ballot for the primary.  The election judge just gives it to him, even after he suggested that he be asked to show ID.

If O’Keefe can roll in and claim the ballot of the Attorney General (interesting how the election judge had no clue who Eric Holder was) without any suspicion, perhaps Holder might rethink this whole voter ID thing?

I doubt it.  Never let common sense and logic stand in the way of an agenda, right?

This little bit of ownage was even better than back in 2005 when a libertarian activist petitioned the board of the town of Weare, New Hampshire to declare eminent domain on the childhood home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, because of how he ruled during the Kelo v. New London decision.  The petition was to take that location and develop it into a hotel and tourist attraction, which would provide higher taxes to the town of Weare.  While it didn’t happen, it very well could have, had the board voted for it.  Souter got away with his house, but the point was made.

Perhaps this is how we do activism now.  Either way, O’Keefe was pretty “fast” and I’m sure Holder was “furious”.

Okay, bad joke – it’s Monday.  I don’t care.

Stay Rabid, my friends.

Howard Stern interviewed Elle MacPherson, recently on his show (if you call that mess a “show” and not an exhibit to debauchery, but once in a while (a great while), we see something interesting.

HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.

ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.

STERN: You like Obama?

MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?

STERN: And you’re living in London and you sense what other foreigners feel. Do they like him?

MACPHERSON: I think foreigners like him. He’s very popular.

STERN: Don’t we look good having a black president and everything? Makes us kind of cool.

MACPHERSON: I think it’s more about his policy. But you know there are I understand that there are a lot of people who don’t, you know, don’t want change. “We want change. We want change.” And he says, “I’ll implement change,” and you go, “Oh, actually, I don’t bleeping feel like I want change. It’s too difficult.”

Now, I’m not all that amazed that MacPherson calls herself a socialist; that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.  All looks and no brain, well, that’s the standard fare for a supermodel, methinks.  But what’s funny is that she likes Obama because she’s a socialist, yet, Obama doesn’t believe himself to be a socialist.

Plenty of times throughout his early presidency, Obama has deflected claims that he is a socialist or that his policies are “socialistic”.  Yet, when we look at some of his policies, he continuously defers to increasing the size and scope of government because he doesn’t believe in the power of the individual.  His arrogance simply tells him that raising taxes on the rich, taking more and more from people (and particularly, the rich) to allow more and more to hook up to the government spigot.  Or do we need yet another review of ObamaCare, Cash for Clunkers, and his current tax plan?

So Obama is not a socialist; he just advocates for things that socialists, like Elle MacPherson, the Occupy crowd (which is raising it’s ugly head again, now that the weather is getting warm) and people like Hugo Chavez really like.  Never mind the comments about “spreading the wealth” around, or some of those lofty comments about how we all have to “work together for our collective salvation”.  Obama isn’t a socialist…

…but Elle likes him anyway.

Someone’s drinking something…with a little more kick than Kool-Aid.

This whole Sandra Fluke shows me just how absurd this entire so-called ‘War on Women’ nonsense is.

1. Sandra Fluke gripes and complains that her college’s health plan doesn’t give her access to free contraceptives. She goes before Congress to gripe about it. Rush Limbaugh calls her out on his radio program as a slut and prostitute – since she wants free birth control. Obama calls her up to console her for Rush’s “mean spirited” slander. And suddenly, she gets her 30 days of fame and becomes the new face of the farcical “war on women”.

My wife said to me today that some birth control meds are also prescribed for hormonal imbalance. Okay, I can buy that – but then, it’s no longer a “birth control” medication, but a hormonal regulator. I take an anti-depressant to keep my blood pressure in check, not unusual. And the way I see it, the Church shouldn’t have any problem with it, since the person taking it would be abstinent, but using the pills for another purpose – an off-label use.

Now, so long as the insurance company would pay for an off-label use of birth control pills to control hormones…

Ms. Fluke’s comment’s are just part of the chorus that proves the point that immorality comes with a high price. She wants that price to come down to allow immorality to have a lower cost – that’s what this is about. Whether she personally benefits from this or not is not my concern – I’m not interested in her personal life, so I won’t call her a “slut” or “prostitute”. But I will say that I don’t buy the lie about how Georgetown, a Jesuit university, should spring for her birth control, just because she can’t afford it.

Hold on…let’s unpack this point. According to Georgetown’s own site, tuition at the Law Center is $46,865, not including fees and books. So this girl can go to Georgetown, after attending and graduating from Cornell in 2003, yet she doesn’t have the money for birth control?

Yeah, right folks, this isn’t about helping ‘a poor underprivileged person in need of medication’. This is about advancing the social left’s immoral agenda. She went to Georgetown to further an agenda.

2. This whole thing about so-called “reproductive rights” is a nonsenical farce wrapped up in syntactical absurdity. No one anywhere is telling women they don’t have the right to reproduce (although there are some we wish wouldn’t). But there is no one stopping them from reproducing.

Oh, but it’s not about reproduction is it? It’s about PREVENTING reproduction. So rather than calling it reproductive rights, how about we call it the right to have sex-without-consequences? That is, after all, what the whole thing is about – unless pregnancy is some sort of virus that needs to be eradicated through medication.

But, at the risk of straw man, if pregnancy were a disease to be prevented, then, like AIDS, the best prevention is abstinence. Of course, the social lib-crats don’t want to hear that.

A Personal Statement for Ms. Fluke
Sandy, just so you know, the Democrats will treat you just like a prostitute. They will use you and, after they have had their way with your life, throw you to the side like last week’s news – because you are not important to them in the long run. You’re just another pawn in the Democrats bid to try to get moral high ground on an issue that they have been losing for decades – an issue that contributes to the death of millions of unborn children.

But if that make you feel good and sleep at night, then by all means – go ahead and jump right into that meat grinder.

I’m just sayin’…

Stay rabid my friends.

Here at The Rabid Conservative, we believe highly in the open flow of information and ideas on the internet. While we do understand that those that create material should get credit and, as appropriate, compensation for their work, SOPA and PIPA are entirely the wrong answer.

Guess it has something to do with our adversity to yet more onerous regulations.  It’s sad that these regulations are being pushed by big media, but hey, at the end of the day, it’s all about the Benjamins.

Censoring the web, attacking sites because they link to one site or another, and forcing ISP’s to be the gestapo for the RIAA/MPAA is completely wrong.  There is a camel sticking his nose in the tent that we don’t want because all we have to see is the nonsense caused by the TSA to see how the government will handle the new found powers of being able to shut down a website – any website.

There is no need to start treating everyone like pirates when it’s a select few that are causing the problems with protection of Intellectual Property. SOPA and PIPA won’t prevent piracy – it will just open the door to the Department of Justice and the Attorney General from blacklisting sites that they decide are “infringing copyright”.

Oh, and did we mention that the sponsor of SOPA, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, has been financially benefiting from leading the charge. The top donors to his 2012 campaign committee are from the TV, movie, and music industries, according to CNET.  What a jerk – you’ve been bought, pal.

So that’s all we gotta say, because it’s all censored.

I really get tired of hearing Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz open her mouth. Every time she does, she says something stupid and irritating. I guess it’s a good thing because if this is the flake that is leading the DNC, then they deserve each other.

So today, while she “hesitated to place blame”, didn’t hesitate to call out the Tea Party for “a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility” when talking about the Tuscon shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Turns out, Jared Loughner, the shooter in the case, was eventually discovered to be a mentally unstable loner with no immediate partisan agenda and a serious alcohol problem. In other words, he wasn’t motivated by the Tea Party, but by his own mental dysfunction.

So I wonder if the Dem Blonde then blames the Tea Party for Loughner’s mental health. It’s like Bush Derangement Syndrome all over again. Since it’s pretty passé to “blame-it-on-Bush”, well, now this shooting was the Tea Party’s fault.

She continued to deride the Tea Party by saying “when they disagree with you on an issue, you’re not just wrong, you’re a liar.” Well, Debbie, you are either a liar or really, REALLY stupid.

But since she’s on the topic of civility, uh, Debbie, did you happen to notice all the Occupy protests out there and the amount of “civility” that they have? Did you happen to even pay attention to how the Tea Partiers carried themselves and acted? Did you happen to compare that to the OWS people? Or has the bleach in your hair began to dry out your brain?

By the way, as a rabid parting swipe, I wonder if Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Clinton in disguise.  She’s got Chelsea’s stringy frizzy hair and Hillary’s mega-hips going.  Kinda makes you wonder…she might even be Bill’s type.

What is it with liberal judges these days feeling like we have to look outside the American judicial system for our rule of law?

So the Tenth (short)-Circuit court of appeals handing down a ruling that just made the folks at CAIR giddy with excitement.  The people of the State of Oklahoma, by a 70% vote, decided on a state constitutional amendment to forbid the courts from judging from any body of laws other than Federal law and the laws of the state of Oklahoma.  The amendment specifically singled out international and Sharia law as not to be used in the courts.

The Tenth Circuit, comprised of mostly liberal to moderate appointees (about 12-4), ruled that the law was unconstitutional.  Muneer Awad (funny name – a wad) argued on behalf of the Council on American  Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is basically a front group for Muslims who want to basically turn America into an Islamic state.  He cited all this “personal damage” to which he would be immediately exposed if Islamic law were banned from the courts.

I’ve always found it strikingly odd that an amendment to any constitutional document is “unconstitutional”.  Constitutional documents are supposed to set the basis for all law in the land – that’s why it should be very hard to modify them, but in so doing, represented the will of the people.  In the end, it’s not up to some limited group of legal dolts to tell us what is to be “constitutional”.  The court is only there to interpret the constitution, which is the will of the people.  If the people, collectively, change their opinion of something and codify that in the constitution, then so be it.

Take prohibition for a moment.  In 1919,. the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified which banned alcohol.  Thus, forbidding alcohol was “constitutional”.  Then in 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, thus, forbidding alcohol became “unconstitutional”.

It is not up to the courts to decide what the people call “constitutional”. If the people call something “constitutional” then that is what the court is supposed to say.  But if the people decide to amend their constitution, it is arrogant and wrong for a group of judges to tell them that they can’t.  After all, it’s “By the People, For the People”, not “By the Judiciary, For those in the minority who gripe”.

The thing is, Muslims want to supplant the laws of America which grant individual liberty and freedom with Sharia law.  They gripe about how the amendment called out Sharia law by name and cited anti-Muslim bigotry.  Notwithstanding that Sharia law is one of the most discriminating and bigoted legal systems in the world, but hey, details, right?

I don’t care if a Muslim wants to follow Sharia law or not.  As a Christian, I follow laws that are not codified in the legal lawbooks of the people.  However, I don’t expect the courts to bring the Bible into account when judging people.  And I don’t think Muslims should have the opportunity to cite Sharia law whenever a husband feels like he can beat or kill his wife for doing something that is condemned in Islamic law and tradition, but not in the regular body of laws.

Back in 2009, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the audacious statement about using foreign and international laws and precedents to decide cases in America.  This blows my mind because it basically says that we Americans aren’t smart enough to figure out anything that isn’t already codified in our laws.

This whole thing should irritate you rabid conservatives out there because we tend to believe that we’re smart enough to come up with our own decisions on law, rather than worrying about what some judge in some foreign land says.  The Founders never wanted Americans to be judged from religion, but rather, from individual conscience.  If a Muslim makes law, judges law, whatever from his own personal convictions, that’s one thing, but applying Sharia in the courts, even if the petitioners are Muslim, is inappropriate.

Unless you’re a liberal who thinks that every other system of law is better than ours or something.

Right now, there is quite an uproar over in England.  Muslims over there are protesting and trying to get the UK to adopt Sharia law.  Groups like CAIR simply want it to happen here too, because if one thing annoys Muslims more, it’s American liberty and freedom.  This is why they call us the Great Satan – because we don’t tie our laws to religion and yet, we allow people to believe and vote their conscience.  Muslims are still throwing rocks at women for showing their hair and Molotov Cocktails at those who look at them.

So, Muslims, it’s not about you or your law – if you want to follow Sharia law and wrap your women up in head-to-toe in burquas, that’s fine, go right ahead.  Just don’t expect the rest of us to care about Sharia law, the Quran’s teachings or accept the ramblings of Mohammad as important, particularly when deciding cases in America.

So after watching all the GOP primary tomfoolery, I decided to make a scan of some of the news headlines

1) Achmedinejad and Chavez can just go jump in a lake.  With all their anti-American rhetoric and saber-prattling, they show their general irrelevance in the world.  No one is impressed with your antics, boys.  By the way, the only atomic bomb we see is that chrome-dome on Hugo’s shoulders.

2) Rahm Emanuel took a little swipe at Bill Daley after his announcement to leave the White House Chief-of-Staff gig.  Fishman made a statement today about how he lasted 18 months, while Daley didn’t.  Thing is, both of you two suck, but it also reminds us about how the Chicago political machine works.

3) The American Athiests are all on the “we-hate-Tebow” bandwagon, calling all the public display of Christianity as “full of crap“.  The thing is, atheists can’t stand the notion of those with committment to God being anywhere in the public square.  But then, we’re all just waiting for the next athiest who can throw a football to come on the scene.  Tebow may not be that great a quarterback, but I’m glad for a change to see someone who’s outspoken about their faith throwing a football and praying and not a Molotov Cocktail and chanting how great Allah is.   Of course, we don’t hear the athiests going after the radical Islamo-fascists now do we?

Silverman gripes about the fact that Tebow should be praying in private not in public.  Why can’t he pray publically and privately?  Oh, because it makes the atheists uncomfortable.  Bah.  Keep on praying Tebow.

3) About 300 employees at Foxconn in China threatened to jump from the building if they didn’t get more wages.  This plant in Wuhan manufactures XBox 360 consoles and is being accused of not honoring work agreements.  The mayor talked them off the roof, but I guess a union boss here in America should tell them that mass suicide threats don’t solve labor disputes.  They either go back to work, quit, or jump.  The way I see it, the threat is pretty much empty and won’t change anything, even if Foxconn is screwing the Chinese (something that doesn’t bother me all that much, by the way).

So, here’s my dark heartless statement of the evening - I wonder if there’s an Achievement and how many gamer points are offered for that?

4) Oh how cute.  Next week on Modern Family we’re going to see a toddler drop the f-bomb on national TV.  Not that anyone will hear anything since it will just be mouthed, but it’s just adorable that we have to keep pushing the limits of what we put on television, notwithstanding a youngling doing it.  Can’t say that I’m overly surprised.

5) Does anyone really care about what Jimmy Carter says anymore?  I mean, really.  So Carter is telling us that he’s happy that the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over power in Egypt.  So what if this thing is going to mean that Egypt is becoming more adverse towards Israel and America?  Oh well, luckily the Brotherhood is going to honor the Camp David accords…for now.

I gotta stop reading the news…it’s just irritating.

Like many of the other pundits and common-taters on the right/correct side of the political aisle, I’ve basically stayed about 50′ feet back from the GOP scrum to find out who is going to challenge Obama.  And right now, I’m sad that we’re already feeling the pangs of loss here at The Rabid Conservative, mostly because those people getting all the attention can barely claim the mantle of conservatism.  Some of them are conservative leaning, but I’m thinking we won’t have a conservative to challenge Obama.

So what do we have now, after the New Hampshire let’s-all-make-a-decision-if-we-can primary?

Romney – The Massachusetts Moderate squeaked a win in the Hawkeye State and won handily where the people Live Free or Die.  I guess a Moderate throughout the rest of the country is a conservative in New Hampshire.

As much as I hate to say it, he’s probably going to be our nominee, given all the Establishment push behind him.  But then, the GOP Establishment would never let an outsider come in to the presidency.  They might lose some of their power over true conservativesm – which many of these idiots are not.

But then, Romney is still better than Obama.  So instead of a Marxist socialist, we get a wishy-washy RINO.  That would still be an improvement if he is able to actually win against Obama.  Thing is, McCain killed Romney in the primaries back in ’08, and then, we all watched the Straight Talk Express get derailed by That One’s Hopey-Changey-Thingy.

Paul – The acolytes of the Ronulan Empire at least show us that there are clueless morons in our own party too.  Of course, legalizing pot and isolationist strategies usually get the kibosh when it’s all said and done.  The scariest thing about Ron Paul is the possibility of him running third party.  Like we need a “Ralph Nader” or “Ross Perot” to screw up the works.

I agree with Rush – If Ron Paul runs, Obama wins.

Gingrich – Hands down, he’s the smartest man in the race.  He’s got more brains than all the rest of the candidates put together.  Thing is, he could probably beat Obama, so the MSM is going to blackball him and move the race to the Massachusetts Moderate.

I’m not a fan of how nasty Newt has gotten, but then, with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney blasting all the negative attack ads against him (in violation of Reagan’s 11th Commandment), I’d probably start name calling too.

Santorum – He’s a solid conservative, but with all the big money flying around, the Senator from Pennsylvania will probably be packing it in after South Carolina, that is, if he doesn’t bail in the next couple of days.

Perry – I guess that Texas charm gained him a consolation prize, $10,000 from Romney after that whole I’ll-bet-you debacle.  But despite the amount of money in the Perry war chest, the Establishment won’t let him in.

Huntsman – He’s wasting money if he thinks he’ll ever win.  A third-place win in New Hampshire isn’t really that impressive.  And the thing is, he’s too liberal to even consider beating Obama. He won’t even do well in Utah, since Romney will have Mormon country pretty much in his camp (not that the Utah primary means anything of any real relevance).

Bachmann – Sad to see her go.  She was a conservative who just got drowned out by all the money.  But then, the Tea Party favorite isn’t the sweetheart of the GOP Establishment.

Anyway, I’m pretty much rabidly ranting because, more than anything, I want to see Obama pink-slipped out of the White House in January.  But I don’t want to see someone without real conservative values in there.  Otherwise, the gains won’t do America a lot of good.

Argh…can’t we just resurrect Ronald Reagan?

Yesterday, Obama made the following statement, demonstrating that he is so blinded by his “hopey-changey-thingy” that he completely forgets what America truly is.

The very core of what this country stands for is on the line — the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try. The notion that we’re all in this together, that we look out for one another — that’s at stake in this election. Don’t take my word for it. Watch some of these debates that have been going on up in New Hampshire.

Basically, That One is But who really is against what America truly is?

1) Is America based on individual liberty and freedom or based on government collectivism and entitlement?

2) Is America based on frugality and fiscal responsibility or endless reckless spending that threatens our financial future?

3) Is America based on exceptionalism, that we are different from the rest of the world in that we believe that the power rests in the people or to a controlling oligarchy of aloof bureaucrats?  Obama doesn’t believe America is exceptional.  He might be right about that though, given that the people are losing their liberties as the liberals seek to bestow the powers of liberty on the Federal Government.

4) Didn’t Thomas Jefferson speak out saying he was for a government that was rigorously frugal and simple, yet what has Obama done to honor that? He has demanded that Congress raise the credit limit ridiculously high and expand government insanely through ObamaCare.

5) Didn’t Jefferson also say that “to take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare some others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association – the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Yet Obama still believes in the socialist belief of taking from the rich in order to pay off the debtedness and entitlements of the poor.

6) Didn’t Patrick Henry say that the Constitution was designed to restrain the government, rather than the people? To that end, what gives Congress the authority to do even a quarter of what they do? And when that doesn’t work out, Obama just starts doing his own thing.

7) Obama continues to allow the progressive notion that the unborn is not life and its destruction as a protected right, however, he disregards that America is established on a person’s right to live. Obama doesn’t believe in what America is, for he said in 2008 that “we were just five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”.

We don’t need change, we need to return back to our roots of what America is – protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as these are endowments, gifts, from our Creator, not bestowments from an oligarchy.  It’s Obama and the Democrat Party’s insane devotion to Marxist socialism that is out of sync with America’s principles.

But that’s the thing – entitlement blinds people.